6 ms·

I've come across variations of this conclusion many times now: That it is really your parents affluence and educational background that predicts your success in

I've come across variations of this conclusion many times now: That it is really your parents affluence and educational background that predicts your success in school and how much you will earn in the future. This is often portrayed as being unjust. To me it always seemed obvious that children with affluent and well educated parents are more likely to be intelligent, have good self-control and other traits that are useful for being successful, simply because those traits are hereditary.

golergka 8y ago
It's only unjust if you define a person's desire to help his children above others as unjust.
- TomMckenny 8y ago
  This, at least, is honest rather than conflated science. We're all much better off discussing policy based on facts rather than distorting facts. This way we can actually discussing the balance of helping offspring vs social immobility rather than endlessly debunking un-facts.
cm2187 8y ago
Agree, which why there is very little value in these single variate analysis. To me sociology is journalism without the requirement to have readers.
skookumchuck 8y ago
The notion of unjustness derives from the idea that accruing wealth is a completely random process.
- cm2187 8y ago
  Or rather that every child is born equal and that its intelligence, skills, behaviour and success is solely the result of its education and social environment, DNA is assumed to play no part in our brain, and therefore if any deviation is observed, it must be the result of social factors, and therefore unjust.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
" simply because those traits are hereditary" I think by far the most important traits are cultural and behavioural. 'Intelligence' is a small thing. Grit, self-discipline, conscientiousness, curiosity, disposition, manners, curiosity, ethics, integrity, attitude towards education, planning for the future, views towards family etc. etc. I think are far more important than raw intelligence. Of course if your parents are CEO's in industry, they're going to expose you to that and the frame of mind necessary, much like so many actors parents are also actors/directors/creatives etc..
TomMckenny 8y ago
The study and article literally say that kids in a given socio-economic group have the same life outcomes whether the grab the marshmallow or not. And not just here but the notion that hereditary wealth correlates to intelligence has been endlessly refuted. But if it were true, wouldn't it mean that blue counties, being richer than red counties, have a much higher average IQ?
- haihaibye 8y ago
  > hereditary wealth correlates to intelligence has been endlessly refuted. Source? There's noise and luck (and IQ wasn't so much a factor for income historically) but given the following, how could it not be true? Intelligence leads to higher income (med school etc) Income leads to higher wealth Wealth is partly inherited. Intelligence is partly inherited.
  - TomMckenny 8y ago
    This very article shows that rich tend to succeed and poor tend to fail regardless of whether the grab the marshmallow or not. But a summary of other issues include: If intelligence corresponds to wealth, we would expect Nobel prize winners and widely cited scientist to be the richest people. Royal families and their descendants, having concentrated their genes, should also be the most inventive, artistic or scientifically productive people. It is possible to improve earnings skills, the degree to which it can be improved is the degree to which it is behavioral rather than genetic. Rich people are scattered through the world and through history and thus have maximum genetic difference. They can not reasonably share a common gene that skips over millions of people between them, let alone crossing the Atlantic to end up in Montezuma's line. And if there were such genes, they would be extremely conspicuous. Yet in spite of great interest and success in sequencing, no gene correlating to wealth has been found. If some genes corresponded to earnings, it would have a geographic origin and concentration as do eye color, lactose tolerance, epicanthic folds, malaria-resistance/cycle-cell etc. Yet every region has a few rich people and many poor. In fact, regions change in wealth over time: nations like Egypt were rich for millennia while Scandinavia and Japan were poor. This does not happen with genes eg blue eyes don't emerge and disappear over millennia at random around the world. All of the above points to wealth acquisition as a essentially a purely behavioral activity. Even if there were any genetic components, they would be negligible to the point of being undetectable. Pardon me for summaries rather than finding dozens of links but here is one readable citation: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11711-smarter-people-are-no-better-off/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11711-smarter-people-...
michaelt 8y ago
The problem I have with this is it’s always tempting to believe the aristocratic class deserve their riches when I’m one of them. Perhaps the idea only “feels right” to me because I like the conclusion it leads to.
arethuza 8y ago
By "hereditary" are you meaning determined or influenced by genetic factors or inheritance of behaviour and assets between generations?
jstewartmobile 8y ago
From my cohort, I'd pin it more on discipline/self-control than anything else. Well-disciplined peers--who weren't particularly wealthy or bright--did the best. Gifted peers with more IQ points than self-control had much bumpier rides.

golergka 8y ago

It's only unjust if you define a person's desire to help his children above others as unjust.

TomMckenny 8y ago
This, at least, is honest rather than conflated science. We're all much better off discussing policy based on facts rather than distorting facts. This way we can actually discussing the balance of helping offspring vs social immobility rather than endlessly debunking un-facts.

cm2187 8y ago

Agree, which why there is very little value in these single variate analysis. To me sociology is journalism without the requirement to have readers.

skookumchuck 8y ago

The notion of unjustness derives from the idea that accruing wealth is a completely random process.

cm2187 8y ago
Or rather that every child is born equal and that its intelligence, skills, behaviour and success is solely the result of its education and social environment, DNA is assumed to play no part in our brain, and therefore if any deviation is observed, it must be the result of social factors, and therefore unjust.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

" simply because those traits are hereditary" I think by far the most important traits are cultural and behavioural. 'Intelligence' is a small thing. Grit, self-discipline, conscientiousness, curiosity, disposition, manners, curiosity, ethics, integrity, attitude towards education, planning for the future, views towards family etc. etc. I think are far more important than raw intelligence. Of course if your parents are CEO's in industry, they're going to expose you to that and the frame of mind necessary, much like so many actors parents are also actors/directors/creatives etc..

TomMckenny 8y ago

The study and article literally say that kids in a given socio-economic group have the same life outcomes whether the grab the marshmallow or not. And not just here but the notion that hereditary wealth correlates to intelligence has been endlessly refuted. But if it were true, wouldn't it mean that blue counties, being richer than red counties, have a much higher average IQ?

haihaibye 8y ago
> hereditary wealth correlates to intelligence has been endlessly refuted. Source? There's noise and luck (and IQ wasn't so much a factor for income historically) but given the following, how could it not be true? Intelligence leads to higher income (med school etc) Income leads to higher wealth Wealth is partly inherited. Intelligence is partly inherited.
- TomMckenny 8y ago
  This very article shows that rich tend to succeed and poor tend to fail regardless of whether the grab the marshmallow or not. But a summary of other issues include: If intelligence corresponds to wealth, we would expect Nobel prize winners and widely cited scientist to be the richest people. Royal families and their descendants, having concentrated their genes, should also be the most inventive, artistic or scientifically productive people. It is possible to improve earnings skills, the degree to which it can be improved is the degree to which it is behavioral rather than genetic. Rich people are scattered through the world and through history and thus have maximum genetic difference. They can not reasonably share a common gene that skips over millions of people between them, let alone crossing the Atlantic to end up in Montezuma's line. And if there were such genes, they would be extremely conspicuous. Yet in spite of great interest and success in sequencing, no gene correlating to wealth has been found. If some genes corresponded to earnings, it would have a geographic origin and concentration as do eye color, lactose tolerance, epicanthic folds, malaria-resistance/cycle-cell etc. Yet every region has a few rich people and many poor. In fact, regions change in wealth over time: nations like Egypt were rich for millennia while Scandinavia and Japan were poor. This does not happen with genes eg blue eyes don't emerge and disappear over millennia at random around the world. All of the above points to wealth acquisition as a essentially a purely behavioral activity. Even if there were any genetic components, they would be negligible to the point of being undetectable. Pardon me for summaries rather than finding dozens of links but here is one readable citation: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11711-smarter-people-are-no-better-off/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11711-smarter-people-...

michaelt 8y ago

The problem I have with this is it’s always tempting to believe the aristocratic class deserve their riches when I’m one of them. Perhaps the idea only “feels right” to me because I like the conclusion it leads to.

arethuza 8y ago

By "hereditary" are you meaning determined or influenced by genetic factors or inheritance of behaviour and assets between generations?

jstewartmobile 8y ago

From my cohort, I'd pin it more on discipline/self-control than anything else. Well-disciplined peers--who weren't particularly wealthy or bright--did the best. Gifted peers with more IQ points than self-control had much bumpier rides.